Don Bradman - Most Overrated Sportsman in the history?

[vicky_iisc]

I agree that no batsmen of the 30s will make it to a world XI on absolute terms. I would even claim that even Shikhar Dhawan who scored 248 today is technically better than Bradman because we live in different times - Bradman did not have the facilities Dhawan had. But I would select Bradman over Dhawan in every World XI team I make. Why is it so?

Where does Dhawan come into picture ? He hasn't even played 2 Tests, he is not fit for consideration. Let him play 50 Tests at least to get exposed to variety of conditions and then we can compare him with Bradman.

 

[Buffet]

Different eras, ok. Why didnt anyone even get close to 65 average in that era.

Only one rational explanation. Let's assume, you are going to have 1 Gun player out of 10K players.

Now if only 10K people play cricket and one Gun player happens to play at same time then he is going to outshine by a great margin.

If you have 10 Million players then with same probability you will have many more ATGs. It will be almost impossible for anyone to outshine all ATGs by a huge margin.​

It's a simple math. I don't think we will ever see anyone in future outperforming their peers by such a huge margin. Too many countries and people play cricket and cricket is not limited to selected few.

 

[Ims1]

As op rightly stated , Don is overrated . let us talk about real quality like Afridi & Akmal

 

[vicky_iisc]

Only one rational explanation. Let's assume, you are going to have 1 Gun player out of 10K players.

Now if only 10K people play cricket and one Gun player happens to play at same time then he is going to outshine by a great margin.

If you have 10 Million players then with same probability you will have many more ATGs. It will be almost impossible for anyone to outshine all ATGs by a huge margin.​

It's a simple math. I don't think we will ever see anyone in future outperforming their peers by such a huge margin. Too many countries and people play cricket and cricket is not limited to selected few.

I think Don surpassed other greats in his era too.. there wasn't a lack of great players in 20s-40s..

 

[Buffet]

I think Don surpassed other greats in his era too.. there wasn't a lack of great players in 20s-40s..

You missed my point. Relative quality of peers will be lot different when you have 1000 people playing cricket as opposed to 10 millions. Don't take these numbers literally. I am just using it to convey a point.

 

[Convict]

However the 50 average mark has constantly remained the sign of a great batsman since after WWI.

 

[vicky_iisc]

You missed my point. Relative quality of peers will be lot different when you have 1000 people playing cricket as opposed to 10 millions. Don't take these numbers literally. I am just using it to convey a point.

Yes, but if we look at the other greats for example Tendulkar, in his era, the number of other greats (Greg Chappell, Richards, Lara, Ponting, Waugh, Gavaskar etc.) is almost same as the greats in Bradman's time.. so he had enough competition too.

 

[Buffet]

Yes, but if we look at the other greats for example Tendulkar, in his era, the number of other greats (Greg Chappell, Richards, Lara, Ponting, Waugh, Gavaskar etc.) is almost same as the greats in Bradman's time.. so he had enough competition too.

Eng invented the game but you have to go 80-100 years back to find most of their ATG's. Why they are unable to produce ATGs when cricket is played widely but many names pops up from Eng when you go in era when cricket was not played widely.

Question is , how many were good players as opposed to being truly a great player? We will never know for sure but just a thought. Without talking about any individual here, I personally don't think that you can have same amount of greats when cricket was played by 10K players as opposed to 10M players.

 

[ahmedzee]

I can't believe how some sensitive souls took this troll of a thread to its 3rd page because of their insecureness...what a shame!!

 

[Buffet]

However the 50 average mark has constantly remained the sign of a great batsman since after WWI.

I don't think average can be compared one to one at all when we are talking about timeless matches with current 5 days test matches. Setting some hard cut off is reasonable but we need to compare same format. Even though, it was called test match, there is huge difference between timeless matches and time restricted matches.

The last ever timeless Test was the fifth Test between England and South Africa at Durban in 1939, which was abandoned as a draw after nine days of play spread over twelve days, otherwise the England team would have missed the boat for home. This match had started on 3 March. South Africa had set a target of 696 for England to win. By the time England had to leave to catch their boat home, on 14 March, England had reached 654 for 5

 

[IndianWillow]

Where does Dhawan come into picture ? He hasn't even played 2 Tests, he is not fit for consideration. Let him play 50 Tests at least to get exposed to variety of conditions and then we can compare him with Bradman.

OK change Dhawan to Gambhir.

 

[James]

To be fair, there are various strong rumours that Bradman was an overrated human being. Allegedly awkward, rude and reclusive.

But that has nothing to do with his on-field pedigree. He averaged one frickin hundred.

 

[vicky_iisc]

OK change Dhawan to Gambhir.

I think Gambhir has been found out, and out of the side, can't compare him with Bradman.

 

[ElRaja]

Does this mean that since running 100m in 10 sec is becoming a breeze now, it was also like that in the 30s?

even though that is a i think that analogy is inherently wrong ill play along with it

100m record around 70s ~ 9.9 sec, today 9.57 sec which is about 3.5% faster

fastest delivery in 70s ~99.7 mph, today ~ 100.2 mph, about 0.5% faster

so a 3.5% increase in sprinting speed can be equated to a 0.5% increase in bowling speed, so by extrapolating the 100 m record in 30s was around 10.3 seconds, which is 7.6% slower, therefore a proportional decrease in bowling pace would be about 1.1%, so around 99 mph.

if athletic prowess is being used to determine the fastest someone could bowl then it not just possible, but more than likely that guys were bowling at 90mph at least.

 

[PakGirl!]

Yes,Bradman is extremely overrated,n I am posting from Mars btw!

 

[IndianWillow]

even though that is a i think that analogy is inherently wrong ill play along with it

100m record around 70s ~ 9.9 sec, today 9.57 sec which is about 3.5% faster

fastest delivery in 70s ~99.7 mph, today ~ 100.2 mph, about 0.5% faster

so a 3.5% increase in sprinting speed can be equated to a 0.5% increase in bowling speed, so by extrapolating the 100 m record in 30s was around 10.3 seconds, which is 7.6% slower, therefore a proportional decrease in bowling pace would be about 1.1%, so around 99 mph.

if athletic prowess is being used to determine the fastest someone could bowl then it not just possible, but more than likely that guys were bowling at 90mph at least.

The example was not cited to demonstrate 3.5% improvement, but to show that champions of yester-years would find it hard even to qualify today. In 100 m, 0.1 seconds is a big difference, much like what 50 runs make in cricket. Go back to the 30s and note down their difference with Usain Bolt and tell me if they are even eligible to run along side him much less win the race.

 

[Changa.banda]

Sir Donald Bradman is not overrated. He averaged one hundred (okay, don't get pedantic now!) which is incredible. You assemble the worst bowlers today and ask today's best batsmen to play against them and I doubt they'd average much more than 70-80. You could make a good case for him being the greatest sportsman ever (Wood, Federer, Jordan, Pele, Ali etc being the other contenders).

HOWEVER, I do have to ask the question : can the fact that he was so much better than his peers alone mean that he would have been able to maintain that average if he'd played in the modern era?

Let's take an example. A,B,C take a test on numbers. A scores 100/100, B scores 50/100 and C scores 30/100.

D, E, F take a test on calculus. D scores 50/100, E scores 52/100, F scores 55/100.

Can we automatically conclude that A is better at Math than D, E and F? I am not so sure. Of course, it is a bit disingenuous to insinuate that the difference in difficulty between Bradman's era and the current era is the same as the difference between a simple numbers test and a hardcore calculus test, but it is worth a thought. The thing is, comparisons in the same era can be extremely difficult and meaningless, therefore comparing across eras is more often than not on the verge of impossible.

I would also like to ask my fellow PPers this:

George Lohmann picked up 112 wickets@10.75 in tests. I am not making this up I assure you, you can check it here :

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/16337.html

Does this make him a better test bowler than say, Imran Khan or Malcolm Marshall? Half the average roughly, which is roughly the same advantage Bradman holds over the Laras and Tendulkars. It would be interesting if longevity, difference in eras, etc. are used because you could make the exact same arguments for favouring a Tendulkar or a Lara over Bradman.

NB : I am playing devil's advocate here. Whilst I don't think Bradman would average 99 in today's era, I think he'd still be the best batsman by a fair distance.

 

[ElRaja]

The example was not cited to demonstrate 3.5% improvement, but to show that champions of yester-years would find it hard even to qualify today. In 100 m, 0.1 seconds is a big difference, much like what 50 runs make in cricket. Go back to the 30s and note down their difference with Usain Bolt and tell me if they are even eligible to run along side him much less win the race.

but we were never talking of direct competition, i never said the bodyline bowlers would be faster than todays bowlers, im just making a relative comparision of the likely pace they were bowling, extrapolating your analogy. a 90 mph bowler would nt be likely to beat shoaib, lee or tommo at their peak, doesnt mean they were all 70 mph dibbly dobbly bowlers.

 

[IndianWillow]

Sir Donald Bradman is not overrated. He averaged one hundred (okay, don't get pedantic now!) which is incredible. You assemble the worst bowlers today and ask today's best batsmen to play against them and I doubt they'd average much more than 70-80. You could make a good case for him being the greatest sportsman ever (Wood, Federer, Jordan, Pele, Ali etc being the other contenders).

HOWEVER, I do have to ask the question : can the fact that he was so much better than his peers alone mean that he would have been able to maintain that average if he'd played in the modern era?

Let's take an example. A,B,C take a test on numbers. A scores 100/100, B scores 50/100 and C scores 30/100.

D, E, F take a test on calculus. D scores 50/100, E scores 52/100, F scores 55/100.

Can we automatically conclude that A is better at Math than D, E and F? I am not so sure. Of course, it is a bit disingenuous to insinuate that the difference in difficulty between Bradman's era and the current era is the same as the difference between a simple numbers test and a hardcore calculus test, but it is worth a thought. The thing is, comparisons in the same era can be extremely difficult and meaningless, therefore comparing across eras is more often than not on the verge of impossible.

I would also like to ask my fellow PPers this:

George Lohmann picked up 112 wickets@10.75 in tests. I am not making this up I assure you, you can check it here :

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/16337.html

Does this make him a better test bowler than say, Imran Khan or Malcolm Marshall? Half the average roughly, which is roughly the same advantage Bradman holds over the Laras and Tendulkars. It would be interesting if longevity, difference in eras, etc. are used because you could make the exact same arguments for favouring a Tendulkar or a Lara over Bradman.

NB : I am playing devil's advocate here. Whilst I don't think Bradman would average 99 in today's era, I think he'd still be the best batsman by a fair distance.

Great observation.

 

[test_fan]

I've always been a slight cynic regarding Bradman but if it was so easy to bat, why weren't we seeing many other players with averages like his?

This. He stands heads and shoulders above everyone from his era. That is completely unmatched in the history of the game. Of course the game was a lot different then, but that's beside the point.

 

[Buffet]

George Lohmann picked up 112 wickets@10.75 in tests. I am not making this up I assure you, you can check it here :

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/16337.html

Does this make him a better test bowler than say, Imran Khan or Malcolm Marshall? Half the average roughly, which is roughly the same advantage Bradman holds over the Laras and Tendulkars.

It does make him only if you assume that quality of cricket was remotely close to being professional in Lohmann's days and 110+ wickets are enough to judge a player. I personally don't think that averages can be compared one to one when we start talking about days when cricket was played by only 2-3 countries and then compare it to current era.

 

[test_fan]

I would also like to ask my fellow PPers this:

George Lohmann picked up 112 wickets@10.75 in tests. I am not making this up I assure you, you can check it here :

http://www.espncricinfo.com/england/content/player/16337.html

Does this make him a better test bowler than say, Imran Khan or Malcolm Marshall? Half the average roughly, which is roughly the same advantage Bradman holds over the Laras and Tendulkars. It would be interesting if longevity, difference in eras, etc. are used because you could make the exact same arguments for favouring a Tendulkar or a Lara over Bradman.

NB : I am playing devil's advocate here. Whilst I don't think Bradman would average 99 in today's era, I think he'd still be the best batsman by a fair distance.

What were the bowling averages of George Lohmann's contemporaries? Was he significantly better than all of them?

" I don't think Bradman would average 99 in today's era, I think he'd still be the best batsman by a fair distance"
-- That's anyone's guess.

 

[IndianWillow]

but we were never talking of direct competition, i never said the bodyline bowlers would be faster than todays bowlers, im just making a relative comparision of the likely pace they were bowling, extrapolating your analogy. a 90 mph bowler would nt be likely to beat shoaib, lee or tommo at their peak, doesnt mean they were all 70 mph dibbly dobbly bowlers.

If they were all bowling at the speeds of modern bowlers, there would have been very serious injuries ( probably deaths also) given the equipment they used and the protection they had. Getting hit on the head was a real possibility and over a period of several decades, there would have been numerous incidents of very serious injury with 140K deliveries. Where are these reports?

The cricket ball isn't a tennis ball that you can afford to get hit on the head when hurled by a 145K pace man. That wooden piece can kill you and imagine the number of such incidents over several decades of the pre-helmet era. Imagine the plight of batsmen who bat down the order and don't have the skills of the first six batsmen.

Helmets came to be used only in the 70s because the real need for helmets arose during this period, with advent of super fast bowlers like Andy Roberts, Thomson and Lillee. All bowlers prior to the 70s did not have express pace and batsmen could afford to face them without helmets. Helmets similar to the modern kind have been in vogue since the 19th century but why they were introduced in cricket only during the 70s? Because there was no serious need till then and getting hit before the advent of the super generation of bowlers was not a life threatening event.

 

[Changa.banda]

Test fan - Webguru or Indian Willow would be able to come up with the list in a lot less time than me. I do know that Frederick Spofforth, who played at around the same time as Lohmann, was rated highly and he averaged about 19. I cannot say with absolute certainty without the backing of a list, but I am fairly certain no-one has test bowling stats that come remotely close to his in any era, let alone his era (assuming reasonable sample size).

Of course, that is anyone's guess. I did say, 'I think' for a reason

Buffet, who is to say that it was any more or less professional than the cricket played during Bradman's era? The difference between Bradman's era and Lohmann's in terms of years is more than the difference between Bradman's era and the current era. And what about blokes like W.G.Grace?

If you want an honest answer from me, I don't think cricket was played at a standard as high as it is today. That goes without saying. The quality of sport world over only improves really, I can't think of an instance where the quality of a sport has regressed over the decades/centuries.

I am curious as to why 112 wickets is not a valid sample size? Surely if you were to factor in the era, that would be a more than reasonable sample size. I was fairly certain that the longevity and the era factors would come up. If we're happy to compare 7k runs with 16k runs then I don't think we should have a problem with 112 wickets either.

 

[Buffet]

Buffet, who is to say that it was any more or less professional than the cricket played during Bradman's era? The difference between Bradman's era and Lohmann's in terms of years is more than the difference between Bradman's era and the current era. And what about blokes like W.G.Grace?

If you want an honest answer from me, I don't think cricket was played at a standard as high as it is today. That goes without saying. The quality of sport world over only improves really, I can't think of an instance where the quality of a sport has regressed over the decades/centuries.

I am curious as to why 112 wickets is not a valid sample size? Surely if you were to factor in the era, that would be a more than reasonable sample size. I was fairly certain that the longevity and the era factors would come up. If we're happy to compare 7k runs with 16k runs then I don't think we should have a problem with 112 wickets either.

I personally don't know which sample size is big enough but I threw it out as a factor.

You are right. Quality of sports will get more competitive with time. I have absolutely no problem comparing run for run and wicket for wicket from 60's/70s to current era. Teams may have been weak or there was less quality players in certain decades. That's fine with me.

Problem comes when I see direct comparison of runs and wickets from very old era when,

- We had timeless matches
- Game was played by very few people, basically it was played by mainly rich guys.
- Only two teams used to play

Absolute comparison of either runs or wickets or averages looks meaningless to me. Sports getting more popular is one thing but here we have a situation where cricket is followed by million times more people. Population of world grew but number of players and following grew drastically more.

Hypothetical case will be only two soccer team playing soccer few centuries ago. One specific player was scoring 5 goals in each match and then we compared that to current era.

I don't think runs and wickets can be one to one compared for late 1800s/early 1900s to current days. Just my opinion.

 

[AFM]

The graph explains it all. All these arguments about the Don playing only against a few countries, facing poor bowlers, not much cricket etc do not explain how the Don was TWICE as good as the other ATG batsmen. You cannot lower an average by 50 just for those factors, not that they have much merit anyway.

The Don played against Bill O'Rielly and Claire Grimett in First Class cricket - two of the greatest spinners in the history of the game. He averaged above 95 in FC cricket. The Don faced Larwood, one of the greatest bowlers in history, during the bodyline series and averaged above 50. There is a reason that field setting is banned - you either take body blows or you got get caught out. He also faced the likes of Vogue and Verity - bowlers who were more world-class.

The Don had Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Headley as his peers. All of them are regarded as some of the greatest batsmen the game has seen. Yet, they all averaged around the 50 mark. The Don played international cricket for 20+ years, same length as Tendulkar, and had a World War to deal with half-way through his career. Yet, he maintained that insane average.

 

[saadsahabjee]

Moral of the story:he was captain america disguised as bradman.

 

[Inziquicksingle]

The graph explains it all. All these arguments about the Don playing only against a few countries, facing poor bowlers, not much cricket etc do not explain how the Don was TWICE as good as the other ATG batsmen. You cannot lower an average by 50 just for those factors, not that they have much merit anyway.

The Don played against Bill O'Rielly and Claire Grimett in First Class cricket - two of the greatest spinners in the history of the game. He averaged above 95 in FC cricket. The Don faced Larwood, one of the greatest bowlers in history, during the bodyline series and averaged above 50. There is a reason that field setting is banned - you either take body blows or you got get caught out. He also faced the likes of Vogue and Verity - bowlers who were more world-class.

The Don had Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Headley as his peers. All of them are regarded as some of the greatest batsmen the game has seen. Yet, they all averaged around the 50 mark. The Don played international cricket for 20+ years, same length as Tendulkar, and had a World War to deal with half-way through his career. Yet, he maintained that insane average.

This.

Why is Tendulkar even compared to him is beyond me.

One does not have to even know zilch about cricket, if they understand a little math and probabilities, that graph is unbelievable.

 

[vicky_iisc]

This is a nitpicking selective observation to bring down the great Don.. however pace of the bowlers he faced and variation in conditions is still a valid point when comparing Tendulkar/Richards/Lara with Bradman.

But there is little to suggest that Tendulkar is better than Bradman, that's just too much to digest even for a Tendulkar fan.

 

[vicky_iisc]

This.

Why is Tendulkar even compared to him is beyond me.

One does not have to even know zilch about cricket, if they understand a little math and probabilities, that graph is unbelievable.

Graph and probability is not the benchmark criterion to judge greatness.. there is a lot of subjectivity involved (though I agree Don put most of the subjectivity out of the window), the man never "failed" I assume.. that bodyline series he averaged 50+ ..and was called a failure.

 

[Inziquicksingle]

This is a nitpicking selective observation to bring down the great Don.. however pace of the bowlers he faced and variation in conditions is still a valid point when comparing Tendulkar/Richards/Lara with Bradman.

But there is little to suggest that Tendulkar is better than Bradman, that's just too much to digest even for a Tendulkar fan.

You just don't get it do you? You can not build a time machine and transport players across different eras. You have to compare them with their peers, in their time.

A Physics professor today might have better knowledge than Newton did in his time. Who is a bigger genius though?

 

[Convict]

To be fair, there are various strong rumours that Bradman was an overrated human being. Allegedly awkward, rude and reclusive.

But that has nothing to do with his on-field pedigree. He averaged one frickin hundred.

Well known problem with Catholics.

Bill O'Reilly, Clarrie Grimmett, Stan McCabe and Jack Fingleton (all Irish Catholics) were not fans of him and Fingleton and O'Reilly (in the press box) were noted to have found it hilarious when he got out for a duck in his last innings.

 

[vicky_iisc]

You just don't get it do you? You can not build a time machine and transport players across different eras. You have to compare them with their peers, in their time.

A Physics professor today might have better knowledge than Newton did in his time. Who is a bigger genius though?

It is not a fullproof method either (not talking about Don here, but in general).. performing better than peers is not a good criterion, as it depends on the quality of peers too.

That physics professor might still be a bigger genius than Newton, who says he can't be ?

 

[TonyStark]

@topic

No. But one thing is sure he would have not averaged 99 in current time. There were no "sniko" or Hotspot at that time. And even Runout reply's or stump camera. so you can guess how easy it would have been to remain not out.

No question he was the best.

I am not a sachin Fanboy, But i love sachins style of batting. Thats the one of the reason Don was famous. Style.

 

[IndianWillow]

I do not really believe that Don's 99 translates to 99 today. It is impossible to average 100 today however good you are, too many teams, too many matches, technology aiding umpires, too much pressure and too much at stake. But I do believe Don was more talented than Sachin, given the period he played in and given his marked superiority over his peers. Don may have averaged 65-70 if he was born recently and played now. This is an average that some of our very good players have maintained over short bursts like 2-5 years, but we can assume that Don had the talent to maintain it over a long career. 99.94 is surreal and will not be repeated now or in future because cricket has changed and it is no longer possible to average like that over 150+ tests in this era.

 

[James]

Well known problem with Catholics.

Bill O'Reilly, Clarrie Grimmett, Stan McCabe and Jack Fingleton (all Irish Catholics) were not fans of him and Fingleton and O'Reilly (in the press box) were noted to have found it hilarious when he got out for a duck in his last innings.

Was Bradman from an English Protestant background then?

 

[Convict]

Was Bradman from an English Protestant background then?

Yep. Like the majority of Australians at the time.

 

[James]

Yep. Like the majority of Australians at the time.

Bloody Papists.

 

[saj786]

Best bat Ive Steen is Brian Charles Lara

 

[Gotham Cronie]

The graph explains it all. All these arguments about the Don playing only against a few countries, facing poor bowlers, not much cricket etc do not explain how the Don was TWICE as good as the other ATG batsmen. You cannot lower an average by 50 just for those factors, not that they have much merit anyway.

The Don played against Bill O'Rielly and Claire Grimett in First Class cricket - two of the greatest spinners in the history of the game. He averaged above 95 in FC cricket. The Don faced Larwood, one of the greatest bowlers in history, during the bodyline series and averaged above 50. There is a reason that field setting is banned - you either take body blows or you got get caught out. He also faced the likes of Vogue and Verity - bowlers who were more world-class.

The Don had Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond and Headley as his peers. All of them are regarded as some of the greatest batsmen the game has seen. Yet, they all averaged around the 50 mark. The Don played international cricket for 20+ years, same length as Tendulkar, and had a World War to deal with half-way through his career. Yet, he maintained that insane average.

A drop the Mic graph right there

 

[dildildalwalla]

I don't agree with everything in the original post (from 2013! lol) but there are some good points made there. I personally believe if one was ranking a top 10 list of all time batsmen, Bradman should be on it but not in the top 5 which should be reserved for the truly upper echelon. An interesting point made in the post is that from the footage we do have available, its true that Bradman seems to score a lot of runs with the horizontal bat, just slogging across the wicket. It does look quite childish.